Thanks a lot for your help in submitting the article "Necropolis of Amorosi". Is it possible to have an accurate feedback in order to improve the page? --LIUCAurora (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits on KA Paul Citation
Clearly the FAA record for the flight shows that it is de-registered due to expiry. You've had citation required. How do you cite the FAA registry when they don't a permanent link for it? You can check on this link with N4522V. https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResult If you are familiar with how to cite this, do update the article with it.
I'm talking about the edits that you did on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K._A._Paul&oldid=1228177263. On this page, you added the citation needed tag for the flight's registration status. I'm not familiar with how you would cite a government website where there is a search feature which displays the relevant data but doesn't have a permanent link for a specific identifier. On the link above, when you key in the aircraft's N Number, you get the status. How would you go about citing that? Dkrish24 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)dkrish24[reply]
I didn't realise that the FAA website actually supported a query param based permalink. Let's hope it stays functional. Dkrish24 (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure, remember to follow the correct format for airport pages. Use “begins,” not “starts” when listing a new route. The correct format can be seen at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT
Thanks for your contributions to Badr Mohammed Al Meer. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
I saw you removed a number of citations to Simple Flying by claiming this is not a reliable source. Can you please direct me to the discusssion in which it was stated so? JetstreamerTalk20:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I most recently tried to spark a wider discussion for a clearer outcome but only one editor replied. A past discussion is here. Per the suggestion of another user above on my talk page, it's also been added to User:Headbomb/unreliable. Based on my reading of WP:RS and evaluation of Simple Flying, it seems to clearly fail the requirements. Do you disagree? Avgeekamfot (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Avgeekamfot I cannot see any improvement on deleting the SimpleFlying references and exchanging them with {{cn}} without having a consensus.
As you have seen by yourself, the discussions you mentioned are not real discussion per lack of participants. Please start a topic on WP:Aviation about that topic.
Second before just exchanging the references with {{cn}}, please have a sufficient research first, if you find a reference that is more reliable for you to exchange it with. 80.187.75.188 (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In fact, among aviation enthusiasts, Simple Flying is widely viewed as a content farm which regularly publishes inaccurate and plagiarized articles."
You need consensus for a source to be reliable, not the opposite. There's clearly no consensus that Simple Flying is unreliable so I will be removing them as I see them. If you believe that its use is valid where I've removed it, you are welcome to seek consensus to re-add it. Avgeekamfot (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"You need consensus for a source to be reliable, not the opposite."
Per which Wikipedia rule? The user Headbomb is a user and does not equal Wikipedia consensus or its regulations.
References on Wikipedia are stated unreliable or are deprecated by consensus.
I wonder how you want to know something about reliable sources as you could't give one for the quoted sentence you wrote. Just refering to "aviation enthusiasts" is not a reliable source per WP:RELIABLE. 80.187.73.104 (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHALLENGE: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Burden of proof is on you if you want to use Simple Flying, not on me if I want to remove it. Avgeekamfot (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading further: "it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." And "Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.)"
Regarding the second quote, your articulation why SimpleFlying may be unrealiable is not sufficient. Referring to some "aviation enthusiasts" is not enough. Just stating it does not meet WP:RS without further explanation is also not enough. "it seems to clearly fail the requirements" is not a factual argument.
WP does not have a whitelist for reliable sources. But a blacklist for unrealiable and deprecated sources: WP:RSP. SimpleFlying is not listed as an unreliable source in that list. Get consensus to get it listed there. 80.187.73.104 (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Aerolíneas Argentinas, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. JetstreamerTalk12:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, assume this is regarding Aerolíneas Argentinas. I understand that MOS:RETAIN applies but the article was already inconsistent which goes against WP:ARTCON. I'm not comfortable enough in British English which is why I switched it to be consistently American English. According to MOS:RETAIN: "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." I reviewed the earliest versions of the article which is clearly in American English ("recognizing" not "recognising", "traveled" not "travelled", "airplane" not "aeroplane") so it seems to me that, given the inconsistency in the article as it stands, standardizing things to American English is appropriate. Obviously, open to your thoughts here but otherwise will re-implement. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JetstreamerTalk12:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jetstreamer - I did create the essay but I don't believe a consensus is needed to do that given the consensus on Simple Flying. The essay tag in the header states: "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". In this case, the essay reflects the consensus reached on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding Simple Flying and just gives me/others an easy place to link for explanation. Looks like the tag was removed but I obviously have no objection if you feel anything in the essay does not represent the consensus or best practice want to collaborate on it. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Avgeekamfot In your post on the Rfc being held on AT&T Corporation's talk page, you said you supported Option B (i.e.: AT&T Corporation's founding date should be listed as 1885). However, in the very same comment, you said the company traced its roots to 1877, the founding date called for in Option A. For purposes of determining how your vote should be counted in the Rfc, would you mind resolving this discrepancy on the talk page? Emiya1980 (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of SimpleFlying sources
Hello user Avgeekamfot, I recently noticed a sharp drop in the number of article using SimpleFlying as a source (around 30 to 50 less entries) and whilst I appreciate the work that you're doing regarding the removal of these SimpleFlying sources, I feel like it would be better if, instead of just simply removing SimpleFlying sources and adding a [citation needed] tag (with the date missing), you tried to research for a reliable source to replace the SimpleFlying sources as it can make searching for replacement sources harder. And if in the end you can't manage to find a reliable replacement source, then you can add a [citation needed] tag with the date included (see given links -->). You could also go to Wikipedia:Citation needed, Template:Citation needed and also Wikipedia:Simple Flying for more information.
Hi there - I understand your position and agree that it's always ideal to find a replacement citation. However, given the scale of the spam site's usage, I feel my time is better spent removing them en masse which will hopefully prompt others to find higher quality replacement sources. Sometimes I might get interested and add a source, and once the backlog of the poor quality citations are removed, I aim to return to improving aviation articles but in the meantime, I feel that [citation needed] is an improvement over bad citations. For dating, understand that is the best practice but @AnomieBOT usually adds the dates after :) Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, when you removed it from Gerrit Johannes Geysendorffer (my bad, I hadn't realized it was that unreliable), you only removed it from the list-defined references but not the call to it in the prose, so it left a citation error behind. Not a huge deal, and already fixed, just figured I'd point it out so you can avoid it next time you find it in an article with list-defined references. AddWittyNameHere23:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they can be a little confusing at first, so no worries. (If you're familiar with named references and using them multiple times in an article, it's pretty much the same thing, though! Except instead of "full reference on one occurrence, then repeated simply by using the reference name for any other occurrences", it's "use the reference name throughout the prose, and the full reference goes in the reference section". Makes the source code more legible when editing, and once you know it's list-defined, it also makes finding "where is this named reference specified" much easier, so there's some nice benefits to it! Just at a slightly steeper learning curve because it's not the most common way things are done on-wiki, and iirc it doesn't play too nice with visual editor) AddWittyNameHere18:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but you just cannot remove around 100 sources and add a [citation needed] tag without actually doing some sort of research.
In this scenario, instead of just replacing every single SimpleFlying source with a [citation needed] tag, it would be preferable if you used the [better source needed] tag instead as at least, it gives a base and the number of pages using SimpleFlying pages is trackable. How else are we supposed to find these pages if all citations are removed?
"After all, the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them."
"While an editor may add this template to any uncited passage for any reason, many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all."Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion started because I had started removing Simple Flying citations and replacing them with [citation needed]. There were definitely some editors who agreed with your approach of using [better source needed] but opinion was divided. I don't mind if you want to take it to the noticeboard again to see if there's a different consensus now but as I said then, I view Simple Flying as WP:CITESPAM and no citation is preferable to that. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
Thank you for the feedback you provided me with on some of my edits on the page for MacArthur Airport (in your revision summary). I had no idea that Simple Flying is taboo for Wikipedia use (very glad to know this now). I can see how I could have been a bit too specific in certain parts of those edits, and I appreciate that you pointed that out, as I likely would not have realized otherwise.
I have added back some missing references (minus the Simple Flying one) and some of the major information (and fixes to typos & inaccurate information, as well as rectifications to some formatting issues) back – but nothing overly-descriptive (I heavily edited a bunch of the parts added back to make sure of it); I strongly opine that the few parts I added back are truly important to the article. And while I was at it, I removed some "fluffery", as well.
I apologize for my initial good faith errors – and once again: thank you for pointing them out to me and explaining them (I genuinely appreciate it).
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Aegean Airlines, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Even though the Simple Flying refs should be removed, this doesn't excuse removal of other properly sourced content or restructuring of an article. Please be cautious with your edits. Anyway, I removed the SF reference myself, but it's something you should have done since you noticed. —Dimsar01Talk ⌚→ 14:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edit summary did provide a valid reason: you made edits adding information that was sourced to an unreliable source. Very standard to revert when improper content is added. WP:ONUS is on you to get edits right and not include unreliable sources when you introduce material to an article. Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point here. The SF ref was backing one sentence (which was also backed by a second ref) out of many I transferred from the Greek wikipedia with other accepted sources. When you noticed the SF reference, what you should have done is:
Check if the sentence is backed by another reference (which it was, with an official one)
Then just remove the SF reference
Leave me a message in my talk page letting me know why SF references should be avoided and why you removed that one (I honestly didn't know about it until your edit, given that WP:Simple Flying isn't an official WP policy or guideline).
As I already said, nothing excuses removal of properly sourced content or reverting other unrelated edits. And also no, WP:ONUS is completely unrelated in this case, as the text I added was updating a section of the article which was last updated in 2014. And aside from that a consensus is required. You can't just remove sourced stuff without other editors' opinion, unless is obviously useless (which it wasn't in this case, you just didn't bother to read it). —Dimsar01Talk ⌚→ 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very standard to revert when improper content is added. And about that, no it is not, when an edit contains other text additions. You go and remove manually content in question. You revert only if the content in question is the only addition of the edit. See WP:FIXFIRST, WP:REVONLY, and WP:BABY. —Dimsar01Talk ⌚→ 22:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! I'm working on a school project and I'm here to ask if you could review the draft page me and my team have written about Monte Zovetto (https://w.wiki/CJe6). It is a mountain in the Italian Prealps that was historically crucial during World War I and is now an historical site. We have a presentation coming up soon, and if you have got time we'd love to get your feedback. Thanks!
LIUCsmarties (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
